News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by luma on Sunday September 30, 2018 @02:34PM (#18107587)
In private conversations with the local city mobility department (which covers public transport and parking), there is a lot of tension building up due to the expectation of autonomous vehicles coming online within a decade. Floating a 20 year bond to build new parking structures used to be a safe investment but there is now a widespread expectation that personal vehicles will not require parking facilities well before that bond could be paid off. It is forcing a re-evaluation of the traditional regulatory, zoning, and financial instruments historically employed by cities to address these problems, and nobody is certain of the answer.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by ghaff on Sunday September 30, 2018 @03:28PM (#18107878)
Those cars still need to go somewhere. Maybe there's more sharing from the outskirts? But if you assume that cars will just drop off and then drive out to some vaguely defined area outside of the city where parking is plentiful, you're going to massively increase congestion.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by slavik81 on Sunday September 30, 2018 @04:08PM (#18108108)
I've heard that a surprising percentage of trip time in the downtown core is spent looking for nearby parking. Having the car drop people off and drive away to park somewhere where parking is less scarce might not actually increase time on road.

You could also greatly increase parking density in parkcades if all vehicles had autonomous parking. For example, it would be no problem to box cars in if vehicles could move on their own to let them out. I bet you could easily double parking density.

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by MBCook on Sunday September 30, 2018 @04:52PM (#18108356)
Plus some sort of vertical parking elevator starts to become much more reasonable. They already exist but when the whole thing is 100% automated including the car you could get more parking out of the vertical space then you do with a current garage.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by mikepurvis on Sunday September 30, 2018 @05:15PM (#18108456)
It'll be possible to pack them way, way more tightly if a) the structure itself is able to move the cars around at will, and b) you can give it an estimate of what time you'll be back (or 30 mins notice for the "standby" option).
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by derefr on Sunday September 30, 2018 @07:46PM (#18109097)
At that point, it's less of a parking structure and more of an automated valet service. You get out of your car and only your car enters.

Taken to the limit of the idea, the whole parking structure could be entirely sealed to the outside, and maybe even evacuated or filled with a non-oxygenated medium (e.g. nitrogen) to prevent car fires and reduce rusting from long-term storage. Sort of like a modern grain silo.

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by slavik81 on Monday October 01, 2018 @12:04AM (#18109966)
My line of thought started from, "what would the world be like if every vehicle had a built-in valet?" I think the design of commercial areas would change dramatically within a couple decades, even just from the effect on parking.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by MBCook on Sunday September 30, 2018 @05:25PM (#18108511)
Excellent point. I hadn’t even thought of all the driving lanes and ramps that you no longer need.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by UpshotKnothole on Sunday September 30, 2018 @05:28PM (#18108530)
How much would such a system cost to build and maintain, and how safe would it be re: vagrants, children? You’d be able to handle more customers of course, but would it compensate for the costs?
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by derefr on Sunday September 30, 2018 @07:43PM (#18109087)
> For example, it would be no problem to box cars in if vehicles could move on their own to let them out.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with parking infrastructure that assumes that all the cars are working and "gassed up." If the car boxing mine in is left to sit in the parking garage for a few months (as might happen in, say, an airport's long-term parking lot), its battery will likely go flat and it'll be incapable of getting out of my way.

Even having automatic standardized charger coupling for every parking space wouldn't really work, since the car boxing mine in could have just plain rusted.

Current infrastructure doesn't have this problem: if the car beside mine can't get out of the garage on its own, that's between the garage and a tow truck, but is no problem of mine.

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by slavik81 on Sunday September 30, 2018 @11:53PM (#18109929)
Valets already do this. They have all the keys, so they can park cars two rows deep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valet_parking#Efficiency

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by luma on Sunday September 30, 2018 @03:32PM (#18107905)
That’s presuming individual private ownership of those vehicles. Detroit seems convinced that a fleet approach (think Uber without the driver) is the most likely outcome. In this case, the fleet moves around as needs require, generating revenue as riders are hailing then moving to an inexpensive staging area when demand decreases.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by ghaff on Sunday September 30, 2018 @03:36PM (#18107936)
It's really not clear how that works. If people keep commuting on a regular schedule, most of the demand is at certain times of day. Now, it's reasonable to ask whether this might not be a forcing function for more varied work schedules as pricing would presumably favor off-peak commuting. But, then, one is inclined to ask, why not the obvious next step--at least part-time work from home--which we can (and many do) today?
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by tomjen3 on Sunday September 30, 2018 @04:39PM (#18108277)
What would probably happen is that the price of a car would go up, which means more people will share a car (this would be feaseable with autonomous cars because you can still leave pretty much whenever you need to, and go pretty much where you need to, because you only need to coordinate with any other group of people who happen to need to leave at that time, rather than select the people you want to share a car with and then coordinate when you need to leave).

There is also the alternative that people will move further away from their work, because they can use the commute time -- essentially then, they would leave their homes at the same time, start working and then leave their offices so that they are home again at the same time, which means (assuming everybody lives at different distances from their workplace) that you automatically get a stackering effect.

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by woolvalley on Sunday September 30, 2018 @03:51PM (#18108007)
Autonomous electric fleets can bring cars in before the predictable peak hours occur, reducing congestion. Autonomous fleets are also not vehicle size limited. You can bring in autonomous buses that go point to point (mostly) because there is high enough demand to fill such specific routes. Autonmous fleets are also not wandering streets looking for parking, which is a major part of congestion.

Autonomous fleets can also be parked in towers, because a robot car doesn't care if it takes 10 minutes to get out of a tower, as long as the throughput is high enough.

Eventually you will need heavy rail to increase throughput for dense enough places, but that's still a separate problem today.

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by twblalock on Sunday September 30, 2018 @04:35PM (#18108256)
I do not expect individual ownership of vehicles to decline much. People trash vehicles they don’t own. Fleet-shared driverless cars will be filled with bad smells, weird stains, cigarette butts, and leftover fast food wrappers. Anyone who can afford to buy a car for themselves will do it.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by joe_the_user on Sunday September 30, 2018 @04:54PM (#18108362)
The stain theory would depend on control and management.

That said, only a percentage of people would want to just discard the car they've spent considerable money on.

Self-driving fares can never be as cheap as regular driving seems. With regular driving, you are silently depreciating the value of your vehicle whereas a self-driving car would have to include depreciation in each ride.

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by mikepurvis on Sunday September 30, 2018 @05:21PM (#18108484)
That assumes a typical daily usage pattern, though, for which yeah owning, fuelling, maintaining, and insuring your own vehicle will probably always make the most sense.

However, for people who do (or plan to) use bicycles or mass transit a significant proportion of the time, being able to fall back on an hailed autonomous car in case of rain, haste, whatever is very appealing. It just depends on being able to look at a monthly bill of $200 (or whatever) in on-demand rides and see it as a huge step forward from what you used to pay in all the fixed costs of car ownership whether you used it or not.

The real trick will be having a workable solution for families with kids— that's an area where current taxis/rideshare have a gap, since they're not willing to supply their own carseats for liability reasons.

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by joe_the_user on Sunday September 30, 2018 @06:51PM (#18108890)
Sure, switching to an autonomous taxi would be an easy call for some people and would not appeal for others.

But when you have that, you double or multiply by N, the road usage. Which is going to produce multiple problems for everyone.

People imagine that once autonomous vehicles reach a certain level, they'll just morph to provide all the benefits of a well-planned public transit system. But I'm doubting common good can just fall out of more chaos.

And hey, the private automobile itself was thrown onto society with effectively no consideration of externalities and brought us to our current heaven/hell of urbanism. So it's quite possible that, despite some talk of planning, autonomous vehicles will just appear, make a hash of things and all the clean-up will happen later, if at all.

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by twblalock on Sunday September 30, 2018 @06:11PM (#18108708)
The carseat thing is a big deal. So is going to Costco and buying a ton of stuff for the family. I don't think very many people do that in an Uber.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by mikepurvis on Sunday September 30, 2018 @06:41PM (#18108844)
Monthly Costco run can be covered by a carshare or just planning on a rental one weekend a month and planning certain chores around it.

The carseat thing is a real missing piece in the puzzle though.

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by derefr on Sunday September 30, 2018 @07:50PM (#18109103)
But Costco offers free delivery above a $75 purchase, which is generally around the same point where the goods wouldn't fit in an Uber.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by notatcomputer68 on Monday October 01, 2018 @04:22AM (#18110850)
As a non-owner of a car thanks for this information
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by ryanwaggoner on Sunday September 30, 2018 @09:29PM (#18109405)
I just checked here in NYC and both Uber and Lyft have carseat options. And every car I’ve ever rented had the option too.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by m0ngr31 on Monday October 01, 2018 @02:43AM (#18110470)
The problem then becomes: what do you do with the carseat[s] when you are shopping, at a venue, etc...

If I own/rent the car, I can just leave them in while I'm doing whatever. If I'm doing Lyft, I'm stuck carrying around baby seats between rides. Which is not appealing.

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by ryanwaggoner on Tuesday October 02, 2018 @12:32PM (#18123210)
That's not how it works...the Lyft has a carseat, you use it, then you get out and leave the carseat behind. It's not a loaner for the day.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by mrep on Sunday September 30, 2018 @10:08PM (#18109546)
Where do you live because I have used zipcar, rental cars, uber, and lyft extensively in the USA and never experienced any of those things. I don't see how people could negatively abuse it that much when the next rider/owning company/video cameras in self-driving cars can easily report the bad actors and ban them from the system.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by joe_the_user on Sunday September 30, 2018 @04:39PM (#18108276)
Self-driving cars technically wouldn't have to go anywhere besides the roads - except maybe periodically to charging and a repair station. Of course, by 3 am, it might be cheaper to have them parked. But there's a lot of parking currently available at 3 am.

Of course, these cars occupy space, which means the road they'd be on would be a good deal more occupied. But remember, parking and traffic aren't static per-car, it's all a matter of rates.

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by joe_the_user on Sunday September 30, 2018 @04:31PM (#18108232)
Good.

It would ironic if an expectation of autonomous vehicles actually forced cities to create public transit if they failed to appear.

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by mc32 on Sunday September 30, 2018 @02:38PM (#18107612)
It's reasonable to be tentative given the uncertainty.

Is it possible to build a mixed use structure with parking at the lower levels that are designed with enough use flexibility that they could be converted into regular occupancy use if (when) parking demand is reduced?

Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by maym86 on Sunday September 30, 2018 @03:41PM (#18107964)
You don't need atonomous vehicles to make this work. A good public transit system within the city, decent bike lanes and some park and ride options for getting in from the outskirts could be enough to make up for the reduced parking options.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by luma on Sunday September 30, 2018 @05:35PM (#18108561)
While I appreciate the wisdom of this approach, the concept of mass transit isn’t new, and for large parts of the US has never worked out for one reason or the other. There are obvious exceptions in high density urban centers, but your typical mid sized midwestern city has never seemed to make mass transit take hold. For better or worse (mostly worse), people by and large continue to prefer private automobiles as their primary (or only) mode of transportation.
Re:Cincinnati Joins the List of Cities Saying ‘No’ to Parkin... by maym86 on Sunday September 30, 2018 @06:37PM (#18108826)
Sure, but the parking requiments mentioned above only really an issue in high density cities. I don't think requiring adequate parking is an issue in the lower density areas.

Hopefully this will encourage people to consider other options if parking becomes to difficult or expensive.